FINALLY
Richard Ruelas, The Republic | azcentral.com Published 2:08 p.m. MT Nov. 1, 2017 | Updated 4:10 p.m. MT Nov. 1, 2017
A judge has ruled that Tempe has the right to eject a man who has claimed squatters’ rights to a valuable piece of property near downtown that he claims has been in his family since the late 1800s.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Karen Mullins, in a ruling filed Wednesday, concluded there is no evidence that Steve Sussex has any ownership of the land, which he has filled over the years with vehicles, a boat, a bus and various piles of debris.
The property also houses an adobe home built by one of Tempe's earliest settlers, one of the oldest existing structures in the region. Sussex says the home has been in his family for generations, dating back to the years before Arizona was a state.
The city of Tempe, which filed action to boot Sussex off the land in 2016, said through a spokesperson that it was pleased with the ruling. The e-mailed response did not contain details on any plans for city action to take possession of the land.
In a September court hearing on the matter, Shelley Cutts, an assistant city attorney for Tempe, argued forcefully that Sussex needed to go.
“Sussex is a trespasser who has blighted this property with junk, debris and abandoned vehicles,” she said.
Judge: Some claims are too late
Jack Wilenchik, the attorney for Sussex, said during his argument before the judge in September that it was not clear who owned the land. He said Sussex might not have a clear documented title, but neither does the city.
Wilenchik said the transactions that left Tempe as the parcel's owner were invalid because the land was originally granted to the territory of Arizona in 1910 in trust and needed to be auctioned off to benefit public education.
Over the years, Union Pacific Railroad also entered the picture, having used part of the land for a right-of-way.
Wilenchik said the city, state and railroad could not deal the land among themselves and that the land needed to put up for auction again.
Mullins ruled that the time to raise that argument had passed. In her ruling, she said Wilenchik needed to make that claim within a year after he discovered it. She said Wilenchik had outlined the supposedly illegal land transaction in a letter to Tempe in February 2015. He didn’t officially raise it in court until July 2016.
In a phone interview on Wednesday, Wilenchik said he would ask the judge to reconsider her ruling. He would also object to any action Tempe took to eject Sussex.
He said his client was still open to negotiating a deal with the city. Earlier this year, the city rejected a proposal put together by former Tempe Mayor Hugh Hallman that would have placed condominiums and a brewery on the site. The deal also would have produced funds to preserve the adobe house.
“We’ve always been open to (a settlement), but the city has been heavy-handed,” Wilenchik said, “and just drives us to fight even harder.”
Under the ruling, the city would have the power to forcibly remove Sussex’s possessions from the land and take it over. It is unclear what would happen to the home, which is listed on the city’s register of historic properties.
The ruling itself addresses transactions dating back to 1892 and includes references to the Arizona Enabling Act of 1910.
The land in question has been the subject of active lawsuits for the past dozen years. The city has had its eyes on the property, near its bustling downtown and steps away from a prime tourist attraction, the Tempe Town Lake, since at least the late 1980s.
Sussex has said the land has been in his family since 1892, when his great-grandfather, Jesus Martinez, purchased it from a settler named Ramon Gonzalez. He said the land passed through family hands through the years and it was given over to him by his grandmother, Belen Sussex.
Meanwhile, apparently unbeknownst to the family, the land underneath the home was deeded by the federal government over to the territory of Arizona in 1910 under the Enabling Act. It became property of the territory, and subsequently the state, under trust.
From dusty lot to prime location
Sussex, a self-proclaimed “junker,” ran a contracting business on the property. He also allowed a painting business to run out of the historic home and allowed friends to store vehicles in various states of repair on the property.
No one minded when the area fronted a dried-up Salt River bed and was used as an unofficial junkyard by residents of Tempe.
But once Tempe revitalized downtown Mill Avenue, filling it with restaurants and bars, and created instant waterfront property with the Tempe Town Lake, Sussex’s property became an eyesore, one that passing commuters on the light rail train saw as they entered the city.
Sussex already lost a legal battle over part of the 1.75 acre parcel, located on the northeast corner of First Street and Farmer Avenue.
In 2005, the state prevailed in its legal battle against Sussex, with the judge ruling that Sussex and his family had essentially been trespassers for more than a century. Sussex moved his belongings over to the eastern half of the property, one that had been part of a right-of-way for the Union Pacific Railroad.
That was the portion that Tempe claimed it acquired in a deal between the state and the railroad.
Sussex asserted his ownership rights in July 2016, saying he had acquired the land through “adverse possession,” the legal term for squatters’ rights. He helpfully included a $5 check to cover the processing fees for the city to hand over title.
Sussex argued he had openly lived on the land for years and the city had done nothing to kick him out. A Superior Court judge threw out that lawsuit, citing case law that said citizens can’t use adverse possession on government lands.
Wilenchik appealed that to the Arizona Supreme Court, which will decide whether to take that case this month.
More claims and counterclaims
In August 2016, Tempe filed an action to eject Sussex from the land.
In his defense to that action and in a counter-claim of his own, Wilenchik raised the issue of how Tempe acquired that land.
He argued that a 2002 deal between the state, the railroad and the city was invalid. In court in September, the argument quickly delved into historic legal minutia.
“I don’t want to get into the history of railroad law,” Wilenchik said during that hearing.
“Neither do I,” replied Judge Mullins, “But I think we’re going to have to.”